The real breath of fresh air we need on the court is a non-lawyer, someone who can read and understand the English language and who isn't willing to let flowery language persuade them that black is white, that discrimination is equality, and that the First Amendment permits censorship of religious expression and regulation of political speech. Someone to bring some common sense to the Court, and an articulate advocate of the sovereign people's right to non-arbitrariness in the adjudication of law.
posted on 10/07/2005 11:09:50 AM PDT
(Corporatism is not conservatism)
The idea of a non-lawyer on the Supreme Court is IMHO a charming anachronism. The bulk of the cases the Court decides each term are those you never read about, because they are not newsworthy. These are patent and trademark cases, tax cases, ERISA cases, water rights disputes, administrative law cases, etc. What these have in common is that they are highly technical to the point where many lawyers have trouble dealing with them, and a non-lawyer would be totally lost. Cases like Roe v. Wade or Bush v. Gore, which is what people think about when they think "Supreme Court," are the exception, not the rule.
posted on 10/07/2005 11:17:10 AM PDT
(Labs for love; .357 for Security.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson